At 7/28/2010 6:43:35 PM, FREEDO wrote:ugh...yes, both sides have their morons..

I made the argument on the fly. I didn't put much thought into. Second of all, you made no attempt to show how it's invalid. Your criticism is an ad hominem which makes you the moron.

I'm sorry, I completely skipped over the part that said you made it. I wouldn't have called you moron. Thought you were just quoting someone else and that the clear absurdity of it was as apparent enough as the other one so that I didn't need to explain why.

At 7/28/2010 6:50:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:Visible light isn't the only part of the EM spectrum.

I know that. But he is OMNIpresent, so he can't be absent from visible light photons.

dude how many times do i have to say it? lol. our inability to distinguish him from ordinary matter using just our eyes doesn't prove the fact that he's not omnipresent. it just proves that our eyes don't detect the difference. since our eyes don't detect very much, the argument loses much of its force.

again, you could say that he is in everything we see being omnipresent. our inability to detect him in everything doesn't prove that he doesn't exist- it only proves that whether or not he is there we can't detect him.

At 7/28/2010 6:50:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:Visible light isn't the only part of the EM spectrum.

I know that. But he is OMNIpresent, so he can't be absent from visible light photons.

dude how many times do i have to say it? lol. our inability to distinguish him from ordinary matter using just our eyes doesn't prove the fact that he's not omnipresent. it just proves that our eyes don't detect the difference. since our eyes don't detect very much, the argument loses much of its force.

again, you could say that he is in everything we see being omnipresent. our inability to detect him in everything doesn't prove that he doesn't exist- it only proves that whether or not he is there we can't detect him.

I was responding to Cody. You make a valid point, but not one that is relevant to my correction to Cody's statement. In other words, I effectively refuted Cody's point, even if your point is a valid one.

At 7/28/2010 8:10:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:I was responding to Cody. You make a valid point, but not one that is relevant to my correction to Cody's statement. In other words, I effectively refuted Cody's point, even if your point is a valid one.

true. and i was responding to the thread in general. that statement was simply a convenient place to quote. why keep going on about the argument if its already been refuted? :P

At 7/28/2010 6:50:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:Visible light isn't the only part of the EM spectrum.

I know that. But he is OMNIpresent, so he can't be absent from visible light photons.

Omnipresence means that he is present everywhere at all times (a bit of a logical problem in itself), but that in no way implies that he has to be part of the visible spectrum. If radiation is omnipresent, that means that radiation is everywhere - not that we can see it.

At 7/28/2010 8:21:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:Omnipresence means that he is present everywhere at all times (a bit of a logical problem in itself), but that in no way implies that he has to be part of the visible spectrum. If radiation is omnipresent, that means that radiation is everywhere - not that we can see it.

Ok, but there's photons of visible light. If God is omnipresent, he can't be absent from photons of visible light.

At 7/28/2010 8:21:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:Omnipresence means that he is present everywhere at all times (a bit of a logical problem in itself), but that in no way implies that he has to be part of the visible spectrum. If radiation is omnipresent, that means that radiation is everywhere - not that we can see it.

Ok, but there's photons of visible light. If God is omnipresent, he can't be absent from photons of visible light.

Yeah he can. And even if he can't does that mean we would be able to recognize hime? No.

Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave

At 7/28/2010 6:47:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:To those who don't take omni-presence literally:

"God is everywhere. We cannot escape His presence." (Ps. 139:7-12)

"God fills the heaven and earth." (Jer. 23:23-24)

You see, just because he's everywhere in the three spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension, doesn't mean he's also everywhere in the visible light spectrum. Sure, he's in photons, but that doesn't mean that the photons look any different. Given that God is in all photons, there's no distinguishing between photons with God and photons without God, so for all you know, God's presence in photons is what allows us to see in the first place.

At 7/28/2010 8:21:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:Omnipresence means that he is present everywhere at all times (a bit of a logical problem in itself), but that in no way implies that he has to be part of the visible spectrum. If radiation is omnipresent, that means that radiation is everywhere - not that we can see it.

Ok, but there's photons of visible light. If God is omnipresent, he can't be absent from photons of visible light.

God isn't just everywhere though. He is among everything. He is immaterial; neither energy nor matter. We can neither conceive nor observe nor define him.

Basically, I see it as God being part of essentially a different dimension from us, so that He and matter can occupy the same space without God actually being matter. Kind of like two polygons being inside of each other in 3D animation.

God isn't just everywhere though. He is among everything. He is immaterial; neither energy nor matter. We can neither conceive nor observe nor define him.

Basically, I see it as God being part of essentially a different dimension from us, so that He and matter can occupy the same space without God actually being matter. Kind of like two polygons being inside of each other in 3D animation.

At 7/28/2010 5:26:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Omnipresence and Non-Visibility

P1: If God exists, God is omnipresent.P2: There exists photons of light visible to the eye.P3: If God exists, God is present in visible light.P4: God is not visible to us.C: God does not exist.

That is a joke argument right, you are spoofing someone right? Though you believe some crazy stuff you are surely far too intelligent to believe that the above is a valid argument against God?

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.